M. Gorky
M. Gorky. Collected works in thirty volumes M., GIHL, 1953 Volume 27. Articles, reports, speeches, greetings (1933-1936) So - the first general congress of writers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and regions finished its work. This work turned out to be so significant and varied that now, in closing remarks, I can only outwardly outline its deep meaning, I can only note the most significant of what it discovered. Before the congress and at the beginning of it, some and even, it seems, many writers did not understand the meaning of organizing the congress. “Why is he?” these people asked. “We’ll talk, we’ll go our separate ways, and everything will remain the same.” These are very strange people, and at the congress they were rightly called indifferent. Their eyes see that in our reality some things still remain “as they were,” but their indifference does not allow them to realize that what remains is only because the proletariat, the owner of the country, does not have enough time to completely destroy and destroy these remnants. These people are quite satisfied with what has already been done, which has helped them move forward into comfortable positions, and which has strengthened their natural indifference as individualists. They don’t understand that we are all very small people in comparison with the great things that are happening in the world, they don’t understand that we live and work at the beginning of the first act the latest tragedy working humanity. They are already accustomed to living without a sense of pride in the meaning of personal existence and only care about preserving the dull lordship, the dull excellency of their small, poorly polished talents. They do not understand that the meaning of personal existence is to deepen and expand the meaning of existence of the multi-million masses of working humanity. But these millions of people sent their representatives to the congress: workers from various fields of production, inventors, collective farmers, pioneers. The whole country stood up before the writers of the Union of Socialist Soviets, stood up and made high demands on them, their talents, their work. These people are the great present and future of the Land of Soviets. Interrupting our conversations, Blinding with the brilliance of unprecedented deeds, They brought their victories - Bread, airplanes, metal - themselves, - They brought themselves as a theme, Like their work, love, life. And each of them sounded like a poem, Because Bolshevism thundered in each. Raw, hastily made lines of poetry Victor Gusev correctly note the meaning of the event: once again the thunder of Bolshevism, the radical transformer of the world and the harbinger of terrible events throughout the world, thundered victoriously. How do I see the victory of Bolshevism at the Writers' Congress? The fact that those of them who were considered non-party, “hesitant”, admitted - with sincerity, the completeness of which I do not dare to doubt - recognized Bolshevism as the only militant guiding idea in creativity, in painting in a word. I highly value this victory, because I, a writer, know from myself how self-willed the thoughts and feelings of a writer are, who tries to find creative freedom outside the strict instructions of history, outside its basic, organizing idea. Deviations from a mathematically straight line, developed by the bloody history of working humanity and brightly illuminated by the teaching that establishes that the world can be changed only by the proletariat and only through a revolutionary blow, and then through the socialistically organized labor of workers and peasants - deviations from a mathematically straight line are explained by the fact that that our emotions are older than our intellect, in that there is a lot of inheritance in our emotions and this inheritance hostilely contradicts the testimony of reason. We were born in a class society, where everyone needs to defend themselves against everyone else, and many enter a classless society as people from whom trust in each other has been erased, from whom the centuries-old struggle for comfortable spot in life, the feeling of respect and love for working humanity, the creator of all values, has been killed. We lack the sincerity necessary for self-criticism, we show too much petty philistine anger when we criticize each other. It still seems to us that we are criticizing a competitor for our piece of bread, and not a comrade at work, which is taking on an increasingly deeper significance as the motivator of all the best revolutionary forces in the world. We, writers, workers of the most individual art, are mistaken in considering our experience to be our sole property, whereas it is a suggestion of reality and, in the past, a very heavy gift from it. In the past, comrades, for we have all already seen and are seeing that the new reality created by the Bolshevik Party, which embodies the mind and will of the masses, - the new reality offers us a wonderful gift - an unprecedented gift of intellectual flowering of many millions of working people. I will remind you of a wonderful speech Vsevolod Ivanov, this speech should remain in our memory as an example of sincere self-criticism of an artist who thinks politically. Speeches deserve the same attention Y. Olesha, L. Seifullina and many others. About two years ago Joseph Stalin, caring about improving the quality of literature, he told communist writers: “Learn to write from non-party people.” Without speaking about whether the communists learned anything from non-party artists, I must note that the non-party people learned to think quite well from the proletariat. (Applause.) Once, in a fit of hangover pessimism, Leonid Andreev said: “A pastry chef is happier than a writer, he knows that children and young ladies love cake. bad person who does a good job, not knowing for whom and doubting that this work is even necessary. That is why most writers have no desire to please anyone, and want to offend everyone." The writers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics see for whom they are working. The reader himself comes to them, the reader calls them "engineers of souls" and demands that they organize in simple words in good, truthful images of his sensations, feelings, thoughts, his heroic work. Such a close, direct unity of the reader with the writer has never happened anywhere, and in this fact there is a difficulty that we must overcome, but in this fact is our happiness, which we have not yet learned to appreciate. Just like the cultures of our fraternal republics, national in form, remain and must be socialist in essence, our creativity must remain individual in form and be socialist-Leninist in the sense of its basic, guiding idea. This meaning is the liberation of people from the remnants of the past, from the indoctrination of a criminal and distorting thought and feeling of class history - a history that educates working people as slaves, intellectuals - double-minded or indifferent, anarchists or renegades, skeptics and critics or reconcilers of the irreconcilable . In the end, the congress gives the right to hope that from now on the concept of “non-party writer” will remain only a formal concept, but internally each of us will feel like a real member of the Leninist party, which so beautifully and timely proved its trust in the honor and work of non-party writers with the permission of the All-Union Congress. At this congress, we issued large bills to the multimillion-dollar reader and the government, and, of course, now we are obliged to pay the bills with honest, good work. We will do this if we do not forget what was suggested to us by the speeches of our readers - and among them our children - we do not forget how enormous the importance of literature is in our country, what various high demands are placed on us. We will not forget this if we immediately destroy in our midst all the remnants of group relations - relations that are ridiculously and disgustingly similar to the struggle of the Moscow boyars for localism - for places in the boyar duma and at the tsar's feasts closer to him. We should remember well the clever words of Comrade Seifullina, who correctly said that “we were too quickly and willingly made writers.” And don’t forget your friend’s instructions Nakoryakova, that in 1928-1931 we gave 75 percent of books that did not have the right to second editions, that is, very bad books. "You understand how much we published too much, how much extra costs made, not only material, but also spiritual costs to our people, our creators of socialism, who read a gray, bad, and sometimes hack book. This is not only a mistake by the writing staff, but it is also one of the grossest mistakes of the publishing industry." I consider the end of Comrade Nakoryakov’s last sentence too soft and kind. With all that has been said, I was addressing the writers of the entire congress and, therefore, the representatives of fraternal republics. I have no reason or desire to single them out in a special place, because they work not only each for their own people, but each for all the peoples of the Union of Socialist Republics and autonomous regions. History assigns to them the same responsibility for their work. as well as in Russians. Due to lack of time, I read few books written by writers of the Union republics, but even the little that I have read inspires me with firm confidence that we will soon receive from them books that are remarkable in the novelty of the material and in the power of the image. remind that the number of people does not affect the quality of talents. Little Norway created huge figures of Hamsun, Ibsen. The Jews recently died the almost brilliant poet Bialik and there was an exceptionally talented satirist and humorist Sholom Aleichem, Latvians created the powerful poet Rainis, Finland - Eino-Leino. , - there is no such small country that would not give great artists their say. I named only the largest and not all of them, and I named writers born in a capitalist society. In the republics of our fraternal peoples, writers are born from the proletariat, and from the example of our country we see what talented children the proletariat created in a short time and how continuously it creates them. But I address with friendly advice, which can also be understood as a request, to representatives of the nationalities of the Caucasus and Central Asia. The ashig made an amazing impression on me, and - I know - not only on me. Suleiman Stalsky. I saw how this old man, illiterate but wise, sitting on the podium, whispered, creating his poems, then he, Homer of the 20th century, amazingly read them. (Applause.) Take care of people who are capable of creating such pearls of poetry as Suleiman creates. I repeat: the beginning of the art of words is in folklore. Collect your folklore, learn from it, process it. He gives a lot of material to both you and us, the poets and prose writers of the Union. The better we know the past, the easier, the more deeply and joyfully we will understand the great significance of the present we create. Speeches at the meetings of the congress and conversations outside the meeting hall revealed the unity of our feelings and desires, the unity of purpose and revealed our unacceptably small acquaintance with art and, in general, with the culture of the fraternal republics. If we do not want the fire that broke out at the congress to go out, we must take all measures to ensure that it flares up even brighter. It is necessary to begin mutual and widespread acquaintance with the cultures of the fraternal republics. To begin with, it would be necessary to organize an “All-Union Theater” in Moscow, which would show on stage, in drama and comedy, the life and way of life of the national republics in their historical past and heroic present. (Applause.) Further: it is necessary to publish collections of current prose and poetry of national republics and regions in Russian, in good translations. (Applause.) Literature for children also needs to be translated. Writers and scientists of national republics must write histories of their countries and states - histories that would acquaint the peoples of all republics with each other. These stories of the peoples of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will serve very well good remedy mutual understanding and internal, ideological cohesion of all people of the seven republics. This mutual understanding, this unity of forces is necessary not only for all the people of the Union of Republics, - they are necessary as a lesson and example for all the working people of the earth, against whom its old enemy, capitalism, is organizing itself under a new guise - fascism. A good, practical method of highlighting the cultural ties and business interdependencies of the Union of our republics can be collective work on the creation of the book “Affairs and People of the Two Five-Year Plans.” This book should show the labor force of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the form of essays and stories the results of their labor and the facts of the cultural and educational influence of labor on people, on the growth of intelligence, etc. the will of individuals, to liberate them from the narrow boundaries of the petty-bourgeois individualism of owners, to educate a new, socialist individuality in the conditions of collective labor - to show the spiral along which we move forward and ascend higher and higher. Participation in this work is absolutely necessary for writers of all fraternal republics, all regions. We are still at that stage of development when we must convince ourselves of our cultural growth. Of all that was said at the congress, the most significant and important thing is that many young writers for the first time felt their importance and responsibility to the country and realized their insufficient preparation for work. Collective work on the creation of books that highlight the processes of grandiose work that changes the world and people will serve as an excellent means of self-education and self-strengthening for us. In the absence of serious philosophical criticism, so sadly shown by the fact of the muteness of professional critics at the congress, we ourselves need to take up self-criticism not in words, but in deeds, directly in working on the material. Comrade to the method of collective work of writers Ehrenburg was skeptical, fearing that the method of such work could harmfully limit the development of the individual abilities of the work unit. Comrades Vsevolod Ivanov and Lydia Seifullina, objecting to him, it seems to me, dispelled his fears. It seems to Comrade Ehrenburg that the method of collective work is the method of team work. These techniques have no other similarity with each other, except for the physical: in both cases, groups and teams work. But the team works with reinforced concrete, wood, metal, etc., always with a definitely uniform material that needs to be given a predetermined shape. In a team, individuality can only reveal itself through the intensity of its work. Teamwork on material social phenomena, work on reflection, depiction of the processes of life - among which, in particular, the actions of shock brigades have their place - is work on infinitely varied facts, and each individual unit, each writer has the right to choose for himself one or another series facts in accordance with his gravity, his interests and abilities. The collective work of writers on the phenomena of life in the past and present for the brightest illumination of paths to the future has some similarities with the work of laboratories that scientifically and experimentally study certain phenomena of organic life. It is known that the basis of any method is experiment - research, study - and this method, in turn, indicates further paths of study. I have the courage to think that it is precisely the method of collective work with material that will help us best understand what socialist realism should be. Comrades, in our country the logic of actions is ahead of the logic of concepts, this is what we must feel. My confidence that this method of collective creativity can produce completely original interesting books, is such that I take the liberty of offering such work to our guests, excellent masters of European literature. (Applause.) Will they try to give a book that would depict the day of the bourgeois world? I mean any day: September 25, October 7 or December 15, it doesn’t matter. We need to take an everyday day as the world press reflected it on its pages. We need to show all the motley chaos modern life in Paris and Grenoble, in London and Shanghai, in San Francisco, Geneva, Rome, Dublin, etc., etc., in cities, villages, on water and on land. It is necessary to give holidays of the rich and suicides of the poor, meetings of academies, learned societies and facts reflected in newspaper chronicles of wild illiteracy, superstitions, crimes, facts of the sophistication of refined culture, strikes of workers, anecdotes and everyday dramas - insolent cries of luxury, exploits of swindlers, lies of political leaders, - it is necessary, I repeat, to give an ordinary, everyday day with all the crazy, fantastic diversity of its phenomena. This is the work of scissors much more than the work of a pen. Of course, comments are inevitable, but I think they should be as brief as they are brilliant. But facts must be commented on by facts, and on these rags, on this rags of the day, a writer’s commentary should shine like a spark igniting the flame of thought. In general, you need to show the “artistic” creativity of history during one day. No one has ever done this, but it should be done! And if a group of our guests takes on such work, they, of course, will give the world something unprecedented, unusually interesting, dazzlingly bright and deeply instructive. (Applause.) The organizing idea of fascism is racial theory - a theory that elevates the Germanic, Roman, Latin or Anglo-Saxon race as the only force supposedly capable of continuing further development culture, a “pure-blooded” racial culture, based, as we know, on the merciless and increasingly cynical exploitation of the vast majority of people by a numerically insignificant minority. This numerically insignificant minority is also insignificant in its intellectual strength, wasted on inventing methods of exploiting working people and the treasures of nature that belong to working people. From all the talents of capitalism that once played positive role organizer of civilization and material culture, modern capitalism has retained only mystical confidence in its right to rule over the proletariat and peasantry. But against this mysticism of the capitalists, history has put forward a real fact - the strength of the revolutionary proletariat, organized by the indestructible and unquenchable, historically grounded, formidable truth of the teaching Marx-- Lenin, put forward the fact of the “united front” in France and an even more physically tangible fact - the union of the proletariat of the Soviet Socialist Republics. Faced with the power of these facts, the poisonous, but light and thin fog of fascism will inevitably and soon dissipate. This fog, as we see, poisons and seduces only adventurers, only unprincipled, indifferent people - people for whom “everything is all the same” and who do not care who they kill - people who are products of the degeneration of bourgeois society and mercenaries of capitalism for its most vile, vile and bloody deeds. The main strength of the feudal lords of capitalism is the weapons that the working class makes for them - guns, machine guns, cannons, poison gases and everything else that at any moment can be and is directed by the capitalists against the workers. But the time is not far when the revolutionary legal consciousness of the workers will destroy the mysticism of the capitalists. However, they are preparing a new worldwide massacre, organizing the mass extermination of the proletarians of the whole world on the fields of national capitalist battles, the purpose of which is profit, the enslavement of small nationalities, turning them into slaves of Africa - half-starved animals who are obliged to work hard and buy nasty, rotten goods only so that the kings of industry accumulate rich gold - the curse of the working people - gold, with insignificant specks of dust the capitalists pay the workers for forging chains for themselves, developing weapons against themselves. It is in the face of such acute class relations that our All-Union Congress worked, and on the eve of such a catastrophe we, the writers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, will continue our work! There cannot and should be no place for personal trifles in this work. Revolutionary internationalism against bourgeois nationalism, racism, fascism - that’s what historical meaning our days. What we can do? We've already done some things. We are doing a good job of uniting all the forces of the radical, anti-fascist intelligentsia, and we are bringing to life proletarian, revolutionary literature in all countries of the world. In our midst there are representatives of almost all European literatures. The magnet that attracted them to our country is not only the wise work of the party, the mind of the country, the heroic energy of the proletariat of the republics, but also our work. To some extent, every writer is the leader of his readers - I think this can be said. Roman Rolland, Andre Gide have the legal right to call themselves “engineers of souls.” Jean Richard Bloch, Andre Malraux, Plivier, Aragon, Toller, Becher, Some- I won’t list them all - these are the bright names of exceptionally talented people, and all of these are stern judges of the bourgeoisie of their countries, all of these are people who know how to hate, but also know how to love. (Applause.) We did not know how to invite many more, who also possess in full force the wonderful human gift of love and hatred, we did not know how to invite them, and this is our considerable fault before them. But I am sure that the second congress of Soviet writers will be graced by many dozens of writers from the West and East, writers from China and India, and there is no doubt that we are on the eve of the unification around the Third International of all the best and the most honest people arts, science and technology. (Applause.) A small and - for me personally - not entirely clear disagreement arose between the foreigners and us on the issue of assessing the position of the individual in a classless society... This question has a predominantly academic, philosophical character, and, of course, it could not be well illuminated on one or two meetings or in one conversation... The essence of the matter is that in Europe and everywhere in the world a writer who cherishes the centuries-old cultural achievements and who sees that in the eyes of the capitalist bourgeoisie these cultural achievements have lost their value, that any day a book any honest writer can be publicly burned - in Europe, the writer increasingly feels the pain of the oppression of the bourgeoisie, fears the revival of medieval barbarism, which, probably, would not exclude the establishment of the Inquisition for heretical thinkers. In Europe, the bourgeoisie and its governments are increasingly hostile towards the honest writer. We do not have a bourgeoisie, and our government is our teachers and our comrades, comrades in the full sense of the word. The conditions of the moment sometimes prompt one to protest against the willfulness of individualistic thought, but the country and the government are deeply interested in the need for the free growth of individuality and provide for this every means as possible in the conditions of a country which is forced to spend huge amounts of money on self-defense against the new barbarian - the European bourgeoisie, armed from teeth to toes. Our congress worked for high notes sincere passion for our art and under the slogan: raise the quality of work! Needless to say, the more perfect the weapon, the better it ensures victory. The book is the most important and powerful instrument of socialist culture. Books of high quality are demanded by the proletariat, our main, multimillion-dollar reader; books of high quality are necessary for hundreds of aspiring writers who go into literature from among the proletariat - from factories and collective farms of all republics and regions of our country. We must carefully, continuously and lovingly help these youth on the difficult path they have chosen, but, as Seifullina rightly said, we should not rush to “make them writers” and we should remember the instructions of Comrade Nakoryakoz about fruitless, unprofitable waste folk remedies for the production of book defects. We must be collectively responsible for this marriage. All our playwrights spoke passionately and convincingly about the need to improve the quality of our drama. I am sure that the organization of the “All-Union Theater” and the “Classics Theater” will greatly help us to master the high technique of ancient and medieval playwrights, and the dramaturgy of the fraternal republics will expand the scope of themes and indicate new original collisions. in the report Bukharin There is one point that requires objection. Talking about poetry Mayakovsky, N.I. Bukharin did not note the harmful - in my opinion - “hyperbolism” characteristic of this very influential and original poet. As an example of such influence, I take the poems of a very gifted poet Prokofiev,- it seems he edited the novel Molchanova“The Peasant” is a novel that was discussed in “Literary Amusements”, in which the fist-like peasant was glorified as our contemporary Mikula Selyaninovich. Prokofiev depicts in poetry a certain Pavel Gromov - a “great hero”, also Mikula. Pavel Gromov is an amazing monster. The world song is sung about him, How he walked, fierce with sword and fire. He -- shoulders like doors- thundered on the Don. And the dust from the campaign obscured the moon. He -- mouth like a cellar- he walked, having survived everything. So the wolf does not pass and the lynx does not run. He -- cheekbones like boards and a mouth like a coffin- He was the complete master of the clearings and paths. In another poem, Prokofiev depicts such a terrible thing: The eldest son knows no equal, Legs-- logs, chest-- mountain. He's alone stands like a laurel Along the paved courtyard. ...Him mustache-- that the reins Beard-- that harrow....Seven desired ones suddenly love. What a goat! By the way, the Lavra is a rich, populous monastery, almost a town, like, for example, the Kiev and Trinity-Sergius Lavra. This is what Mayakovsky's hyperbolism leads to! In Prokofiev, it seems that it is also complicated by hyperbolism Klyueva, singer of the mystical essence of the peasantry and the even more mystical “power of the earth.” I do not deny Prokofiev’s talent; his desire for epic imagery is even commendable. However, the desire for epic requires knowledge of zpos, and on the way to it one can no longer write such poems: Glory flew across the fields, Thunderbolt controlled fate. If the storms went to the right, Thunderbolt went to the left. The storms again breathed anger, a strong cold of all latitudes (?). If the storms went to the left, Thunderbolt went the other way. I think this is no longer epic. This is like a rehash of an old poem that wanted to be funny: Two friends lived in Kyiv - Amazing people. The first was from the south, and the second was the opposite. The first terrible one was a glutton, And the second one was an idiot, The first one died of constipation, And the second one - on the contrary. Our Soviet poetry has achieved very significant successes in the short period of its life, but just like prose, it contains a very fair amount of barren flowers, chaff and straw. In the fight for high quality prose and poetry, we must renew and deepen the theme, purity and sonority of the language. History has brought us forward as builders of a new culture, and this obliges us to strive even further forward and higher, so that the whole working world can see us and hear our voices. The world would very well and gratefully hear the voices of poets if they, together with musicians, tried to create songs - new ones that the world does not have, but which it should have. It is far from true that the melodies of ancient songs of Russians, Ukrainians, and Georgians are filled with grief and sadness; probably, the Tatars and Armenians also have songs of marching, round dance, comic, dance, labor rhythms, but I am only talking about what I know. Old Russian, Georgian, Ukrainian songs have an endless variety of musicality, and our poets should familiarize themselves with such collections of songs as, for example, “Velikoross” Shayna, as a collection Dragomanova And Kulisha and others of this type. I am sure that such an acquaintance would serve as a source of inspiration for poets and musicians and that the working people would receive wonderful new songs - a gift they have long deserved. It must be taken into account that an old melody, even slightly modified, but filled with new words, creates a song that will be learned easily and quickly. You just need to understand the meaning of rhythm: the chorus of “Dubinushka” can be stretched to the length of a minute, but you can also sing it to a dance rhythm. Our young poets should not disdain creating folk songs. Forward and higher is the path for all of us, comrades, this is the only path worthy of the people of our country, of our era. What does higher mean? This means: we must rise above petty, personal squabbles, above pride, above the struggle for first place, above the desire to command others - above everything that we have inherited from the vulgarity and stupidity of the past. We are involved in a huge cause, a cause of world significance, and we must be personally worthy to take part in it. We are entering an era full of the greatest tragedy, and we must prepare, learn to transform this tragedy in those perfect forms, as the ancient tragedians knew how to portray it. We must not forget for a minute that the whole world of working people is thinking about us while listening to us, that we are working in front of a reader and viewer that has never been seen before in the entire history of mankind. I urge you, comrades, to study - to learn to think, to work, to learn to respect and appreciate each other, as soldiers value each other on the battlefield, and not waste your energy fighting each other over trifles, at a time when history has called you to merciless struggle with the old world. The Japanese spoke at the congress Hijikato, Chinese Hu Lan-chi and Chinese Amy Xiao. These comrades, as it were, verbally shook hands with each other, signifying the unity of purpose of the revolutionary proletariat of a country whose bourgeoisie was infected from Europe by an acute and fatal attack of the madness of imperialism, and a country whose bourgeoisie not only betrays its people as sacrifices to the robber-imperialists, but also exterminates them themselves to please the imperialism of foreigners, just as Russian landowners and factory owners did this in 1918-1922, using the cynical help of shopkeepers in Europe, America, and Japan. The congress did not clearly enough note the speeches of the representatives of the revolutionary proletariat of the two countries of the East, which can only be explained by the extreme fatigue caused by two weeks of work, which required an enormous amount of attention, and finally tired attention. Having completed its work, the All-Union Congress of Writers unanimously expresses sincere gratitude to the government for allowing the congress and broad assistance to its work. The All-Union Congress of Writers notes that the successes of the internal, ideological association of writers, clearly and solidly revealed at the meetings of the congress, are the result of a resolution of the Central Committee of the Lenin-Stalin Party of April 23, 1932, a resolution that condemned groups of writers for reasons that have nothing to do with common with the great tasks of our Soviet literature in its entirety, but by no means denying associations on technical issues of diverse creative work. The Congress of Writers is deeply pleased and proud of the attention generously shown to it by numerous delegations of readers. The writers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will not forget the high demands placed on them by readers and will honestly try to satisfy these demands. Most of the writers, judging by the structure of their speeches, perfectly understood how enormous the importance of literature as a whole is in our homeland, they understood what they were obliged to do by the impressive, continuous demonstration of the strict but loving attitude of readers to literature throughout the entire congress. We have the right to believe that this love is caused by the merits and work of our young literature. The reader has given us the right to be proud of the attitude of the reader and Lenin’s party towards us, but we should not exaggerate the importance of our work, which is still far from perfect. Self-education through self-criticism, continuous struggle for the quality of books, planned work - as far as it is permissible in our craft - understanding literature as a process created collectively and imposing on us mutual responsibility for each other’s work, responsibility to the reader - these are the conclusions which we must infer from the demonstration of readers at the convention. These findings oblige us to immediately begin practical work- organization of all-Union literature as a whole. We must process the enormous and most valuable material of speeches at the congress so that it serves us temporary- I emphasize the word “temporary” - leadership in our further work, we must in every possible way strengthen and expand the connection formed at the congress with the literature of the fraternal republics. At the congress, in the face of representatives of the revolutionary literature of Europe, our poor knowledge or complete ignorance of our literature was sadly and unworthy of European languages. In view of the fact that our connections with the writers of Europe will inevitably expand, we must introduce the study of European languages into our everyday life. This is also necessary because it will open up the possibility of reading in originals. greatest works painting with words. No less important is our knowledge of the languages of Armenians, Georgians, Tatars, Turks, etc. We need to develop a general program for classes with beginning writers, a program that would exclude from this work subjectivism, which is extremely harmful for young writers. To do this, it is necessary to combine the magazines "Growth" and "Literary Studies" into one magazine of a literary and pedagogical nature and cancel the less successful classes of individual writers with beginners. There is a lot of work, all of this is absolutely necessary. In our country it is unacceptable for the growth of literature to develop by itself; we are obliged to prepare a replacement for ourselves, to expand the number of literary workers ourselves. Then we must ask the government to discuss the need to organize an “All-Union Theater” in Moscow, in which artists of all nationalities of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics would have the opportunity to acquaint us Russians with their dramatic art and, through it, with the past and present of their cultural life . The main, permanent troupe of this theater should be Russian, which would perform plays by Azerbaijan, Armenians, Belarusians, Georgians, Tatars and all other nationalities of Central Asia, the Caucasus, Siberia - in Russian, in exemplary translations. The rapid growth of the literature of the fraternal republics obliges us to seriously monitor the growth of these literatures and can significantly contribute to the growth of Russian drama. It is necessary to discuss the issue of organizing a “Classics Theater” in Moscow, in which exclusively plays from the classical repertoire would be performed. They, by introducing the viewer to writers to examples of dramatic creativity of the ancient Greeks, Spaniards and English of the Middle Ages, would increase the viewer's demands on the theater, and the writers' demands on themselves. We need to pay attention to the literature of the regions, especially the Eastern and Western Siberia, to bring her into the circle of our attention, to publish in the magazines of the center, to take into account her importance as an organizer of culture. We must ask the government to allow the Union of Writers to erect a monument to the pioneer hero Pavel Morozov, who was killed by his relatives because, having understood the sabotage activities of his blood relatives, he preferred the interests of the working people to kinship with them. It is necessary to allow the publication of almanacs of the current fiction fraternal national republics, at least four books a year, and give the almanacs the title “Union” or “Brotherhood” with the subtitle: “Collections of modern fiction of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.” Dear comrades! Before us is a huge, varied work for the benefit of our homeland, which we are creating as the homeland of the proletariat of all countries. Get to work, comrades! Friendly, harmonious, fiery-- get to work! Long live the friendly, strong unity of workers and fighters in a word, long live the All-Union Red Army of Writers! And long live the all-Union proletariat, our reader,-- reader-friend, whom the honest writers of Russia were so passionately waiting forXIXcentury and who has appeared, lovingly surrounds us and teaches us to work! Long live Lenin's party-- Leader of the proletariat, long live the leader of the party, Joseph Stalin! (Stormy, long-lasting applause, turning into ovation. Everyone stands up and sings “The Internationale.”)
NOTES
The twenty-seventh volume includes articles, reports, speeches, greetings written and delivered by M. Gorky in 1933-1936. Some of them were included in authorized collections of journalistic and literary-critical works ("Publicistic Articles", 2nd edition - 1933; "On Literature", 1st edition - 1933, 2nd edition - 1935, as well as in the 3rd edition - 1937, prepared for publication during the author’s lifetime) and were repeatedly edited by M. Gorky. Most of the articles, reports, speeches, and greetings included in the volume were published in periodicals and were not included in authorized collections. Articles, reports, speeches, and greetings from M. Gorky are included in the collected works for the first time.
First published in the newspapers "Pravda", 1934, No. 242, September 2, "News of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee", 1934, No. 206, September 2, " Literary newspaper", 1934, No. 117, September 2, and "Literary Leningrad", 1934, No. 45, September 3, as well as in the publications: “The First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers,” Verbatim Report, M. 1934; M. Gorky, Soviet literature, Goslitizdat, M. 1934. Included in the second and third editions of the collection of articles by M. Gorky “On Literature.” Published with a slight reduction from the text of the second edition of the specified collection, verified with manuscripts and typescripts (A. M. Gorky Archive).
Proclamation of the method of socialist realism as the main one in new literature. The congress was preceded by the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of April 23, 1932 “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations,” which abolished many literary organizations - and above all RAPP (Russian Association of Proletarian Writers) - and created a single Union of Writers. Its goal was declared “to unite all writers who support the platform of Soviet power and strive to participate in socialist construction...”. The Congress was preceded by some liberal changes in the public atmosphere:
1) culture came to the fore as the most reliable bastion in the fight against fascism. At this time, M. Gorky’s famous article “Who are you with, masters of culture?” appeared, addressed to the writers of the world, to their reason and conscience: it formed the basis for many decisions of the Congress of Writers in Defense of Culture (Paris, 1935), in which among others, B. L. Pasternak participated;
2) on the eve of the congress, many “fierce zealots”, carriers of communist arrogance, real “demons” - persecutors of M. A. Bulgakov, A. P. Platonov, N. A. Klyuev, S. A. Klychkov, V. lost their influence. Y. Shishkova and others, such peddlers of vigilance and a caste approach to culture as L. Averbakh, S. Rodov, G. Lelevich, O. Beskin and others. And vice versa, some former oppositionists were involved in active work in the field of culture ( N. I. Bukharin was appointed editor of Izvestia and was even approved as a speaker on poetry at the First Congress instead of N. Aseev);
3) already before the congress, the idea of the greatest responsibility of creative achievements, their words for the people in the harsh, actually pre-war decade, when gunpowder smelled from all borders, was introduced into the minds of writers - sometimes despotic - about the inadmissibility of fruitless formalistic experiments, trickery, naturalistic everyday writing, and especially preaching the powerlessness of man, immorality, etc.
The Congress of Writers was opened on August 17, 1934 in the Hall of Columns in Moscow with an opening speech by M. Gorky, in which the words were heard: “With pride and joy I open the first Congress of Writers in the history of the world.” Subsequently, there were alternate reports from writers - M. Gorky himself, S. Ya. Marshak (on children's literature), A. N. Tolstoy (on drama) - and party functionaries N. I. Bukharin, K. B. Radek, speeches by A. A. Zhdanov, E. M. Yaroslavsky and others.
What and how did the writers themselves talk about - not functionaries at all, not obsequious rushers in creativity - Yuri Olesha, Boris Pasternak, V. Lugovskoy? They talked about the sharply increased role of the people in the character, type of creativity, and in the fate of writers.
“Do not break away from the masses... Do not sacrifice face for the sake of position... With the enormous warmth with which the people and the state surround us, the danger of becoming a literary dignitary is too great. Away from this affection in the name of its direct sources, in the name of great, practical, and fruitful love for the homeland and the present greatest people"(B. Pasternak).
“We took and nibbled on topics. In many ways, we walked along the top, not into the depths... This coincides with the drying up of the influx of fresh material, with the loss of a coherent and dynamic sense of the world. We need to free up space in front of ourselves... Our goal is poetry, free in scope, poetry coming not from the elbow, but from the shoulder. Long live space! (V. Lugovskoy).
The positive side of the work of the congress was that although the names of M. Bulgakov, A. Platonov, O. Mandelstam, N. Klyuev were not mentioned, A. Bezymensky and D. Bedny were silently relegated to the background. And the frantic singer of collectivization F. Panferov (with his multi-page “Whetstones”) appeared as a phenomenon of very low artistic culture.
Was the method (the principle of world exploration, the initial spiritual and moral position) of socialist realism to blame for many of the sins of literature?
When developing the definition of the method, the fact that it was necessary was clearly taken into account - this was the spirit of the 30s, the spirit of a return to the Russian classics, to Russia the motherland! - discard the aesthetic directives of L. D. Trotsky, the “demon of revolution”, in the 20s. which prescribed a break with the past, the denial of any continuity: “The revolution crossed time in half... Time is cut into living and dead halves, and one must choose the living one” (1923). It turns out that in the dead half of culture are Pushkin, Tolstoy, and all the literature of critical realism?!
Under these conditions, a kind of “aesthetic revolution” took place; a definition of the method and the main point, the requirement for its functioning was found: “a truthful, historically specific image of reality in its development.” Witness and participant in conversations between writers (most often in the house of M. Gorky), chairman of the Organizing Committee of the First Congress, editor of “New World” I. M. Gronsky recalled the path to this definition:
“...I proposed to call (the creative method. - V.Ch.) proletarian socialist, and even better, communist realism... We will emphasize two points: firstly, the class, proletarian nature of Soviet literature, and secondly, we will point out literature The goal of the entire movement, the entire struggle of the working class is communism.
“You correctly pointed out the class, proletarian character of Soviet literature,” Stalin remarked, answering me, “and you correctly named the goal of our entire struggle... Pointing out the ultimate goal of the struggle of the working class - communism - is also correct. But we do not pose as a practical task the question of the transition from socialism to communism... Pointing to communism as a practical goal, you are getting a little ahead of yourself... How would you react if we call the creative method of Soviet literature and art socialist? realism? The advantage of such a definition is, firstly, brevity (only two words), secondly, clarity and, thirdly, an indication of continuity in the development of literature.”
Socialist realism is an accurate reflection of the era of the 30s. as the pre-war era, which required extreme monolithicity, the absence of strife and even disputes, an ascetic era, in a certain sense simplified, but extremely holistic, hostile to individualism, immorality, and anti-patriotism. Having received retroactive force, that is, having been extended to the story “Mother” by Gorky, to the Soviet classics of the 20s, it gained powerful support and persuasiveness. But called upon to be “responsible” for the ideologically depleted, normative literature of the 40-50s, almost for the entire “mass culture”, he became the object of feuilleton-cheeky irony.
The first congress of Soviet writers took place from August 17 to 30, 1934. This truly significant event was preceded by the Decree of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations,” from which it followed that numerous writers’ organizations were to unite into one, consisting of writers who fully “support the platform of Soviet power.” The authorities wanted to unite people who were completely different in their worldview, creative methods and aesthetic inclinations.
The venue for the First All-Union Writers' Congress was the Column Hall of the House of Unions. For such a solemn event, it was necessary to decorate the room; after a few debates, it was decided to hang portraits of literary classics in the hall. Which immediately became a reason for the irony of evil-tongued writers:
There was enough room for everyone
Who's on the podium, who's on the ground,
And who is just on the wall!
So, for example, everyone was taken aback,
The fact appeared to us as if in a dream -
At the department Tolstoy Alyosha,
Tolstoy's Leva is on the wall.
One of the delegates of the First Congress of the Union of Writers of the USSR, A. Karavaeva, recalled the opening day of the forum: “On a sunny August morning in 1934, approaching the House of Unions, I saw a large and lively crowd. Among the chatter and applause - just like in the theater - someone’s young voice was heard energetically calling: “Comrade delegates of the First Congress of Soviet Writers! When entering this hall, do not forget to raise your historical mandate!... The Soviet people want to see and know you all! Tell me, comrades, your last name and present your delegate card!”
According to mandate data, men predominated among the delegates to the First Congress of USSR Writers - 96.3%. The average age of participants is 36 years. The average literary experience is 13.2 years. By origin, the first place comes from peasant backgrounds - 42.6%, workers - 27.3%, and working intelligentsia - 12.9%. Only 2.4% were nobles, 1.4% were clergy. Half of the delegates are members of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), 3.7% are candidates for membership of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and 7.6% are Komsomol members.
The number of prose writers among the congress participants was 32.9%, poets - 19.2%, playwrights - 4.7%, critics - 12.7. Children's writers - 1.3% and journalists - 1.8%.
Curious and National composition congress. Russians - 201 people; Jews - 113; Georgians - 28; Ukrainians - 25; Armenians - 19; Tatars - 19; Belarusians - 17; Uzbeks -12. A further 43 nationalities were represented by between 10 and one delegates. There were even Chinese, Italians, Greeks and Persians.
In addition to the performances of venerable and not so venerable writers, the Soviet government provided for its “engineers of human souls” (by the way, one of the popular aphorisms of the First Congress of Soviet Writers, the authorship is attributed to Yu. Olesha) and material benefits.
Meals for the congress participants were centralized and free for delegates. It was organized in a restaurant on Bolshoi Filippovsky Lane. The cost of the writers' daily meals (breakfast, lunch and dinner) was 35 rubles.
For the movement of delegates and organizers of the First All-Union Congress of Writers, 25 passenger cars, 6 buses for collective trips, and 5 trucks for transportation were allocated. All delegates were given the right to use free of charge public transport in Moscow. Delegates were transported centrally for breakfast, lunch and after dinner. Seats on the railway for the return journey were also reserved.
The authorities are also concerned about the cultural program for delegates. Theater tickets were purchased, film screenings were organized, evenings of national literature, excursions, and dinner with academicians and scientists were organized. All writers who arrived at their First Congress were photographed for free. They were given newspapers and given specially published congress magazines.
So, the comrades “at the top” could quite responsibly summarize: “The party and the government gave the writer everything, taking away only one thing from him - the right to write badly.”
The authorities demonstrated their care for the writers devoted to them and their generosity. In turn, the writers demonstrated outward unity and consolidated their skill in doublethink. A big deal called the First Congress of the USSR Writers' Union took place.
Tatiana Voronina
The beginning of the 30s for the USSR meant that Soviet power had existed in the country for 15 years and had strengthened quite thoroughly, despite the catastrophic famine of 1933, the excesses and “blows” of collectivization. Before the eyes of dumbfounded Europe and America, which found themselves in an unprecedented economic crisis, the industrial power of the USSR increased. In the USA, who treated with contempt Soviet Russia, under the blows of the Great Depression and growing social protest, they recognize the Soviet Union and establish diplomatic relations with it. Europe responded to the economic crisis with fascism. It smelled like a new world war.
Within the Communist Party, supporters of Trotsky, the world revolution, all wings of pre-revolutionary revisionist social democracy, left-wing irresponsible rebellion, Zionism biding its time, all these Bukharins, Zinovievs, Radeks, pushed away from the first and dominant places, were preparing for revenge. In the country, a line was drawn towards national, internal supports; most of the leaders began to understand that in the upcoming battle with the world of fascism and nationalless capital, we cannot count on the help of the world proletariat, but must rely on our own people, on our own economy, on our own history , to their own culture. During the rampant Narkompros, where N.K. tried to rule. Krupskaya, the “singer of noble estates” Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin and other “non-proletarian” writers were expelled from school libraries. But at this time a group of the country's leaders gave the signal for a massive, millionth edition of the classics Russian literature, creating libraries for schoolchildren, peasants, Komsomol members, Red Army soldiers from the works of N. Gogol, L. Tolstoy, A. Pushkin, N. Nekrasov, M. Lermontov, I. Krylov. Pushkin captivated the country in 1937, but can you imagine what would have happened if in those years, when Russia had made a genuine cultural revolution and when millions of people had overcome illiteracy, she had received American comics, detective stories by today's ladies, literature of horror, and violence for reading? , pornography? Here, no Oleg Koshevoys and Zoya Kosmodemyanskys would have grown up in the country before the World War.
The line for revival began to emerge historical traditions, focus on the victories of the Russian people over foreign invaders. The red devils, revolutionaries of all eras, the communards made room, giving way to Alexander Nevsky, Suvorov, Kutuzov, Peter I. A letter appeared from the country's leaders (Stalin, Zhdanov, Kirov) stating that it is necessary to show respect for the history of the country, its real historical personalities, its military, scientific, and cultural achievements. True, this was all a little later. But already in 1933-34 this was manifested in the preparation and holding of the First Congress of Writers. Thus, the First Congress of Soviet Writers became a field ideological battle many forces, and not only those that were inside the country. A considerable part of Russian writers, not accepting the platform and actions of the Soviet government, or simply falling into the whirlpool historical events, left Russia. Russian literature in exile for many years retained the spirit, style, image Russian classics. Among them were stars of the first magnitude (I. Bunin, I. Shmelev, I. Ilyin). Due to age-related reasons, it gradually faded away, some returned to their homeland (A. Tolstoy, I. Kuprin, M. Gorky). On the territory of Soviet Russia, as it seemed to many, literature in the national Russian sense would never be revived. And from where? When the leaders of those who declared themselves “proletarian” writers did not accept any continuity and proclaimed: “In the name of our Tomorrow, we will burn Raphael,\\ We will destroy museums, trample the flowers of art...” Ruthless “proletarian” writers, true “frantic zealots” only for themselves conferred the right to be considered representatives of literature. All these Averbakhs, Lelevichs, Bezymenskys, Libedinskys, Utkins, Ermilovs crucified any attempts to think nationally, to peer deeply into life, to make it a subject artistic comprehension, search for truth. Everything was subordinated to the idea of world revolution, the idea of destroying the old world “to the ground” and throwing it into the future. They did not notice the outstanding stories of M. Sholokhov, through clenched teeth they spoke about the superior artistic talents of L. Leonov and V. Shishkov, calling them “fellow travelers” with contempt.
The main road of literature ended up in the hands of RAPP, VOAPP, MAPP - the so-called proletarian organizations of writers. They created, or seized, almost all literary and socio-political publications; they, waving the baton of criticism, beat all the rebellious, non-standard, trying to create national literature. How reminiscent it was of the 80s and 90s, when the entire society and, naturally, literature were driven into the mainstream of “democracy” and non-pop literature was forced to join the “true civilization.” It’s amazing how the tricks and slogans have changed, but the methods of the “violent zealots”, dressing up in proletarian, liberal, and democratic clothes, have not changed.
As I understand it, in those 30s, in the depths of power and society, many people thought about the fate of Russia, looked for strategic and tactical moves for its revival, without raising the question of restoring the pre-revolutionary system. Of course, a lot can be discussed about this, but this is a special study in which there cannot be one color, because historical tasks at each period of time faced the country and the government, taking into account world events, in their own way, and they had to be answered non-standardly and often fateful. Society was then heterogeneous; there were many people who represented the basis of the pre-revolutionary system. Among them were those who were classified as exploiters, others as poor people, and proletarians. Although by 1936 the Constitution declared the equality of all people. In the 60s, I met with one prominent scientist who strongly criticized communism and power. I carefully asked: “You have orders all over your chest, you are a laureate of the State Prize and you scold communism so much, why?” “Well, well, I scolded the authorities in the 30s, but when I realized that there was a war ahead, that there, in the West, no one would save Russia, I decided to strengthen the Fatherland and create new equipment.” I think that this mood was typical for many people in the 30s.
And for writers who had talent, realistic “travelling” was a characteristic path in the literature of that time. The “realists” in power could not help but notice this. The first warning to the “frantic zealots” was in 1932 the party resolution “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations,” according to which it was decided to liquidate the association of proletarian writers and unite all writers supporting the platform of the Soviet government into a single Union of Soviet Writers. M. Gorky, who is considered the initiator of such a decision, nevertheless spoke in support of RAPP, which, in his words, “united the most literate and cultural party writers.” Apparently, the idea of uniting writers and overcoming the bacchanalia of factions arose among the country's leadership and, first of all, Stalin. There is no doubt that this was also dictated by the desire to adapt the literary organization to national needs and general party objectives. But behind this there was also an attempt to curb the “violent zealots” in culture who made up the second Trotskyist-Bukharin echelon.
The date of the congress was postponed several times, and it opened on August 15, 1934. It was opened and the main report was given by A.M. Bitter. By this time he had finally returned to the Soviet Union, “squeezed” out of Europe by the crisis and fascism. Of course, one can be skeptical and critical of the First Congress of Writers, which nevertheless unfolded a panorama of the country’s active, growing, diverse literature. Did he show all his available strength, did he name all the worthy names? No, of course. The Rappovschina did not give up its positions, the Trotskyist-Bukharin opposition gave its battle at the congress. One can attribute all the “excesses” to Stalin, but we must not forget that in addition to A. Gorky, the main reports were given by N. Bukharin (on poetry, poetics and the tasks of poetic creativity), K. Radek (on world literature and the tasks of proletarian art). But it was N. Bukharin who, back in 1927, published the famous “Evil Notes” with the defeat of Sergei Yesenin. After this, Yesenin disappeared from publishing plans, school textbooks and anthologies for almost 30 years. He was merciless towards Mayakovsky. Good connoisseur of poetry! K. Radek was just as categorical, lining up a series of poets close to his heart. These oppositionists to Stalin formed their own literary opposition and wanted to form their own recognized line of poets and leaders close to them in spirit. They used M. Gorky to put pressure on Stalin and Zhdanov. Of course, all this may look like a purely political conference at the congress. Yes, that's true too. But still, the literary component was also built up. The following were elected to the presidium of the congress: famous writers, like A. Gorky, F. Gladkov, V. Ivanov, L. Leonov, P. Pavlenko, L. Seifulina, A. Serafimovich, N. Tikhonov, A. Fadeev, K. Fedin, M. Sholokhov, I. Erenburg. A. Shcherbakov was elected from the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. And talk about literature, about artistic creativity, about folk origins, about history, about talent, about language, took place, despite the loud proletarian rhetoric of the Rappovites. What are the words of M. Gorky worth: “the beginning of the art of speech is in folklore. Collect our folklore, learn from it, process it... The better we know the past, the easier, the more deeply and joyfully we will understand the great significance of the creativity of our present?
Most of the writers left under the patronage of the Trotskyist-Bukharin leadership. Of course, the Writers' Union was to a large extent subordinate to the state and the party leadership, but there was some space, conditions for creativity and especially material support (suffice it to recall the Literary Fund formed in those years, a considerable number of rented dachas built in Peredelkino, the House of Creativity, the House of Writers, the publishing house " Soviet writer”, etc.).
Many people have probably forgotten that before the Great Patriotic War The Russian Writers' Union did not exist. There was a Union of Soviet Writers created by Alexei Maksimovich Gorky, which had republican branches in all Soviet republics, except Russia. This strange situation was a consequence of the policy laid down in the post-revolutionary 20s by Trotsky and his comrades, who dreamed of a world international and hated everything Russian. The Russian people, who selflessly bore the burden of the development of our state on their shoulders, found themselves in a disadvantaged position. Other national entities that were part of the USSR developed and were supported by them national culture and self-awareness, and in Russian Federation Not only did there not have its own writers' union, the Academy of Sciences, but even the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, which for that time was simply surprising. Russian self-consciousness not only did not develop, but, on the contrary, was oppressed, considered chauvinistic, nationalistic, although in relation to other peoples of the Soviet Union this was called the development of national self-consciousness and national culture.
But after the war, attitudes towards the Russian people began to change. The Russian people showed their dedication, their fundamental essence as a state-forming people, it was the Russian people who made the main contribution to the Victory, and it was the Russian people who died the most in the war. The turning point, probably, was the historical toast of Generalissimo Stalin “to the great Russian people.” The revival of Russian self-awareness in the USSR has its roots in Great Victory. On this wave, in 1957-1958, the Union of Writers of the RSFSR was created - now the Union of Writers of Russia. It was headed by the outstanding Russian writer Leonid Sobolev (by the way, what’s surprising! - non-partisan). In the first years of activity, the creation of regional branches of the Union, the formation of governing bodies, and the reunification of writers into a single social organism took place. At the same time, the spiritual and ideological component of the activities of the Russian SP also crystallized. And although it was not possible to reflect it in any resolutions of congresses or program documents, Vladimir Soloukhin’s book “Vladimir Country Roads”, published in 1957, carried a powerful charge of Russian ideology. That’s when a group of writers appeared who were not afraid to pronounce and write the words Rus', Russia, Russian... In essence, the created Union of Writers of the RSFSR became the only legally operating organization that stood up for the defense of Russians in the Soviet Union.
Khrushchev, with his turbulent politics, did a lot of harm to the Russian people, and this was also true of his entourage, which included such odious personalities as Adzhubey and Ilyichev, who built national policy on the pre-war model. In addition, Nikita Khrushchev had a negative attitude towards the generation of winners. We remember how he dealt with Marshal Zhukov, how he was afraid of the military who won the war. Patriotism was clearly not held in high esteem at that time; the Orthodox Church was subjected to special persecution. During the reign of Khrushchev, the wife was destroyed Orthodox churches more than in the 20s and 30s. After Khrushchev was removed from his posts for vulgarity and voluntarism in politics, it became easier to breathe.
It so happened that the Russian revival movement approached the beginning of perestroika somewhat confused and disunited, and therefore lost the “battle for minds” to the “perestroika” and liberal-Western lamas. But by 1994, the Union of Writers of Russia, having already cleared itself of anti-Russian sentiments, at its congress proclaimed our basic principles:
Follow the traditions of classical Russian literature;
Establish realism as the main artistic direction;
Affirm morality;
Fight for the purity of the Russian language;
To be sovereigns.
From this moment, one might say, the third stage in the history of the Russian Writers' Union began, when our creative union became a union of like-minded writers, united by the idea of the spiritual revival of Russia.
When President Putin presented me with the Order of Honor in the Kremlin in 2005, I thanked him and said that I consider this order “an award to the Union of Writers of Russia, which seeks to continue the traditions of Russian classical literature, moral and spiritual literature, the Union, which stands guard over the Russian language, the languages of the peoples of our country. A nation survives even if its economic basis changes completely. The nation is preserved if the state structure changes, even if the state disappears. But if a language disappears, a nation ceases to be such. The remaining population remains. We evaluate today’s award as the concern of society and the authorities for the Russian language, for our spiritual strength, and for the moral basis of literature.”
We work in many areas, but the main thing we strive for is for our Union to always participate in creative actions for the benefit of the Fatherland. We are co-founders of the All Peaceful Russian People's Council, which is headed by His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus'. I am the Deputy Head of the World Russian People's Council. The Writers' Union of Russia has been most actively involved in the organization and work of the Councils since its formation in 1993. At each of them we consider the main, most pressing issues in the life of the Russian people - spiritual revival, problems of the Russian language, the Russian national school, the health of the nation, Orthodoxy, the position of Russians in the world at the end of the 20th century. beginning of XXI century. Constantly held round tables with the participation of the clergy, writers, representatives of patriotic circles, and the intelligentsia.
Nowadays, government interference in literary affairs is not so noticeable, but economic dictate is much tougher and more relentless. All accumulated and created, including at the expense of writers, Houses of Creativity (with the exception of Peredelkino) were confiscated, publishing houses became private, and writers lost any social status, because the Law on creative unions, despite the promises of all legislators, it has not yet been adopted. They are trying to take away the house of Russian writers.
And yet Russian literature exists. Seven and a half thousand writers are united in the Writers' Union of Russia, which considers itself to be the successors of the traditions of Russian classical literature, to people of a sovereign and moral position, which does not reject the achievements of realistic and honest literature of Russian abroad, Russian Soviet literature. And in this sense, the first congress of Soviet writers in 1934 is a historically important milestone, forcing us to remember the complexity of the path of Russian literature, to clearly see the efforts that were and are being made by many to lead it away from the path of serving the people and their Fatherland.
Valery Ganichev
Ilya Erenburg, recalling (thirty years later) about those days, admitted that he was preparing for the congress like a girl for her first ball. This is the skeptic Ehrenburg. So what can we say about others! Ehrenburg ended his memories of this “first ball” this way: They elected a board, approved the charter. Gorky declared the congress closed. The next day, janitors with brooms went on a rampage at the entrance to the Hall of Columns. The holiday is over. The meaning of this conclusion is clear: the holiday has passed, and harsh everyday life has begun. But whatever you say, there was still a holiday!
In reality, however, the holiday was completely false. And this was clear to many of its participants even then. In the book “Power and the Artistic Intelligentsia,” to which I have already referred more than once, among the many documents covering the course of the congress, the following was published:
"Special message from the secret political department of the GUGB NKVD of the USSR
"On the progress of the All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers. Writers' responses to the work of the congress."
I will give just a few of these responses.
Everything was so smooth that I was simply overcome by a manic desire to take a piece of shit or a dead fish and throw it at the presidium of the congress.
This is on the emotional level.
And the very essence of what was happening was expressed by one of the oldest Russian writers of that time - A. Novikov-Priboy:
The period of final bureaucratization of literature is coming. The main goal of this pompous state event was to take control of the unruly free writers, to nationalize literature, to make it manageable.
It was not possible to completely cope with this task immediately. This took years, even decades. Stalin, who once threw out the famous slogan - “We have no irreplaceable people”, when D.A. Polikarpov, a party functionary appointed to manage the writers, complained to him how difficult it was to work with them (one drinks, the other is a womanizer, the third considers himself a genius and does not obey any orders), replied:
“At the moment, Comrade Polikarpov, we cannot provide you with other writers. If you want to work, work with these.”
But it was none other than himself who created this situation in which Colonel Skalozub’s promise to “give the intellectuals a sergeant major as Voltaires” came true:
He will line you up in three ranks,
If you make a peep, it will instantly calm you down! This same Polikarpov was appointed to the role of such a sergeant major. And can you blame him for coping with this role in accordance with his ideas about how it should be performed:
“Polikarpov established a regime of terror. Everything that does not coincide with his taste is mercilessly cut, removed, prohibited.” Polikarpov behaves especially outrageously at the party bureau of the Union of Soviet Writers, at party meetings, at meetings of the SSP board. Everywhere - his word, his tone are indisputable. Personal taste, personal assessments of works become law. That's yesterday. Polikarpov holds board meetings with activists. The nomination of works for the Stalin Prize is being discussed. Polikarpov prepared a list in advance. If the speakers say something that is not what he wants, he begins to shout, interrupt them with the rudest remarks, and deprive them of their words. The indignant Tvardovsky, whom Polikarpov allowed himself to shout at as if he were a boy, leaves the meeting. Polikarpov interrupts debates whenever he pleases, shouting and pointing at writers known throughout the country like a gendarme. No, really, such a situation did not exist even under the notorious Averbakh! front. History of political censorship 1932-1946. Collection of documents". M., 1994. Page 186.)
Polikarpov, who surpassed the “notorious Averbakh” in his zeal, was nevertheless removed from the leadership of writers by Stalin. He understood that in such a delicate and complex matter as fiction, there must be irreplaceable people. And these “irreplaceables” must be handled “as delicately as possible.” Stalin acted carefully, at first he tried not to irritate anyone particularly. Therefore, “proletarianism” still retained its meaning for some time. Some, now unknown to anyone, Chumandrin sat on the presidium of the congress, and M.A. Bulgakov did not even receive a guest ticket. But next to Chumandrin on the presidium sat B.L. Pasternak and A.N. Tolstoy. Stalin still needed the “irreplaceable” ones, and it didn’t occur to him that anyone could be appointed the country’s chief writer, even Chumandrin. But the process has begun. And thirty years later, any party functionary could easily be appointed the main writer of the country. Which is what was done.
When Georgy Mokeevich Markov suddenly felt ill at some writers’ congress, Hero of the Soviet Union V. Karpov quickly jumped up to the podium from the presidium and, delicately taking Georgy Mokeevich aside, took his place and read the report to the end, thereby establishing himself in the role of the new, regular head writer. And no one even protested or was even surprised. But I got carried away and ran far ahead.